Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

G.Joseph Ebinezer vs The Commissioner on 24 November, 2017

Author: S.M.Subramaniam

Bench: S.M.Subramaniam

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :24.11.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.9330 of 2014 and
 MP.No.1 of 2014

G.Joseph Ebinezer						..         Petitioner 
vs

The Commissioner,
Palladam Municipality,
Palladam,
Tiruppur District.			                              .. Respondent


Prayer:  Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to appoint the petitioner in the post of Tap Inspector in the respondent Municipality by providing him upper age relaxation under 12(d) of Tamil nadu State and Subordingat service rules and other relevant Gos of the State of Tamil Nadu based on the representation made by the petitioner on 03.03.2014.

     	               For Petitioner       :  Mr.K.Thilageswaran
		      For Respondent    :  Mr.K.Rajkumar




					O R D E R

The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to appoint the petitioner in the post of Tap inspector in the respondent Municipality by providing upper age relaxation under 12(d) of Tamil nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and other relevant Government Orders of the State of Tamil Nadu based on the representation made by the petitioner on 03.03.2014.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner is fully qualified for appointment to the post of Tap Inspector in the respondent Municipality. This apart, the writ petitioner cannot be considered as overaged candidate, in view of the fact that the age relaxation was granted under Rule 12(d) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, in respect of the writ petitioner. However, the respondent has not considered the Rules and the Government Orders in this regard and rejected the candidature. The writ petitioner has submitted a representation on 03.03.2014 to consider his case in accordance with the above said provision and the same is yet to be considered.

3. Thus, without going into the merits of the matter, direct the respondent to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 03.03.2014 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitioner is directed to enclose the copy of the representation and relevant documents along with the orders passed in this writ petition.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

24.11.2017 sk Index:yes Internet:yes Speaking order To The Commissioner, Palladam Municipality, Palladam, Tiruppur District.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.

sk W.P.No.9330 of 2014 24.11.2017